Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Just as President Obama ordered his Department of "Justice" to ignore its constitutional duty to uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and as California government refused to uphold voters' decision to protect REAL marriage (leading to the Supreme Court rulings voiding democracy), now Pennsylvania officials are refusing to uphold the people's law regarding same-sex "marriage."

State officials asked a court to stop a rogue county from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, nearly a week after a clerk began granting them in violation of Pennsylvania law.

Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state without same-sex marriages or civil unions. [Montgomery County clerk D. Bruce] Hanes began issuing licenses to same-sex couples shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage of Act.

The developments come the same day that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett’s office indicated that it would defend the state’s marriage law in a separate legal challenge filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, had said earlier this month that she wouldn’t defend the state in that suit because she believes the law to be unconstitutional.

. . . A small county in Pennsylvania, Montgomery County, has decided to overlook the state's ban on marriage equality and start issuing licenses. Their justification? Preventing LGBT couples from marrying is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The move has thrown everyone -- activists, opponents, elected officials and jurists -- into a state of consternation. Will the state actually recognize the licenses? It's unclear.

. . . Montgomery County said it would defend Hanes. Until a court intervenes, "the Register of Wills Office will continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," County Solicitor Ray McGarry said in a statement.

The lawsuit alleges that Hanes "risks causing serious and limitless harm to the public," citing "administrative and legal chaos" and couples "left to believe erroneously that they have entered into a valid marriage under the law of Pennsylvania."

The lawsuit means even more uncertainty for at least 34 couples who have received same-sex marriage licenses in Montgomery County. Typically, they have from three to 60 days to get a licensed officiant to carry out the weddings and return the certificates to the register of wills.

As of Tuesday afternoon, only six had completed their ceremonies and filed their marriage certificates. Whether those six couples are in fact married depends on whom one asks.

Hanes and the Democratic-led Montgomery County commissioners say the marriages are valid, arguing that the state constitution supersedes the 1996 Marriage Law.

"The clerk's actions are in direct defiance of the express policy of the commonwealth that 'marriage shall be between one man and one woman,'" wrote chief counsel Alison Taylor for the Health Department.

Mr. Hanes announced on July 23 that he would begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples. He was acting on a statement by state Attorney General Kathleen Kane that Pennsylvania's marriage laws are "wholly unconstitutional," leaving it to Mr. Corbett's general counsel, James Schultz, to defend against the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 10 gay couples.

On Tuesday, Ms. Kane's decision prompted a stern four-page letter from Mr. Schultz to her first deputy, Adrian R. King Jr., in which he accused the attorney general of abrogating her duty based on her own personal feelings.

Further, Mr. Schultz said Ms. Kane has placed any lawyer now left to defend the case at a disadvantage and that she has set "a very troubling precedent."

"This has the very real potential to compromise, among other things, the functions of the legislative and judicial branches of our government and the defense of our laws."

[After the June Supreme Court rulings,] Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, announced she would not defend the Commonwealth’s 17-year-old law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Standing in the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Kane announced that “I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s [law banning same-sex marriage], where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”

“Look, I took an oath and swore to uphold the Constitution,” Hanes said, “and to me that law stands in direct opposition to the guarantee of equal rights. Being married is a civil right and the Pennsylvania Constitution says I cannot discriminate in who I provide licenses to.”

Hanes, who is a Democrat and a lawyer, said that given that the language in Pennsylvania’s law mirrors the federal statute the Supreme Court recently struck down, he could not discriminate in issuing marriage licenses without violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Likening Hanes to President Obama for “simply ignoring a law if he doesn’t like it,” Montgomery County Republican Committee Chairman Robert Kerns issued a statement that noted “regardless of how you feel about it, until the Legislature changes the law or a court says otherwise, it is the law of the commonwealth.”

The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III marked the first and most significant to date in a series of court challenges to the state's 1996 ban.

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them onto the ash heap of history," Jones wrote in the 39-page opinion. "By virtue of this, ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth."

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The Arcadia (California) Unified School District board accepted an anti-discrimination edict from President Obama's Department of Justice requiring the school to allow students to choose their gender at will, independent of any physical or mental health review, disregarding human biology, and thus choose their restroom and locker room usage.

“[Obama's Attorney General] Eric Holder needs to reread the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and find out that civil rights are based on an unchangeable, immutable characteristic. You cannot change your genes or your gender. You have chromosomes and they are either XX or XY.”-- Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com

School board officials unanimously approved an agreement Tuesday night to take action to ensure the student, who was born female and whose gender identity is male, “will be treated like other male students while attending school in the district,” according to a statement by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The agreement, joined by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which participated in the investigation, resolves a complaint filed in October 2011.

The complaint alleged the district had prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his [sic] male gender identity, including restrooms and locker rooms at school, as well as sex-specific overnight accommodations at a school-sponsored trip, because of his [sic] gender identity.

Prosecutors say the student – who was a seventh-grader at the time the complaint was filed – began a gender transition from female to male during his [sic] fifth-grade year in 2009-2010 while attending an elementary school in the AUSD.

The student, who has attended Arcadia schools since kindergarten and is now entering ninth grade, has identified as a boy from a young age, according to the agency. He [sic] began the transition to living as a male during fifth grade.

Under the agreement, the district will immediately take steps to treat the student like all other male students.

The district will also work with a consultant to create “a safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment for students who are transgender or do not conform to gender stereotypes,” according to a release.

The district will amend its policies to designate gender-based discrimination -- including discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, transgender status and nonconformity with gender stereotypes -- as a form of discrimination based on sex. Teachers will also undergo training on preventing gender-based discrimination.

The school district, without admitting fault, agreed Tuesday to resolve the complaint filed in October 2011, by an unidentified student and the child's family, who were represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

. . . The complaints further alleged the school district prevented the child from using boys restrooms and locker room facilities in sixth and seventh grade. The student was required to use a private restroom in the nurse's office.

The child's parents at first agreed to the arrangement, but over time the student became unhappy and felt it drew attention.

An investigation was launched under Title IX and IV, which prohibit gender-based discrimination.

“We are pleased with the collaborative agreement we have worked out with the Department of Justice," David Vannasdall, assistant superintendent of the Acadia Unified School District, told FoxNews.com. "We feel it is a reasonable agreement, and we feel it will allow school to move forward in its mission to support all students.”

But several conservative groups said the federal agency has no business getting involved in the issue as a civil rights matter, and in doing so, trampled on the rights of other students.

Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, told FoxNews.com that the main issue is whether this decision will impact the rights and fairness for the majority of kids.

Lafferty rejected the idea that claiming a gender identity that runs counter to one's anatomy is a civil right on par with the struggle African-Americans and other groups went through.

Monday, July 29, 2013

In typical fashion, news sources are abuzz reporting that Pope Francis has effectively turned the Church upside-down, when in fact, the Pope told reporters that women cannot be priests and that homosexuals, whether priests or not, are forgiven by God when they repent of sinful behavior -- thus, status quo (no news here).

[Pope Francis] is known to distrust the mainstream media and had told journalists en route to Rio that he greatly disliked giving news conferences because he found them “tiresome.”-- Associated Press

His comments came in an unprecedented 80-minute news conference with reporters on his plane returning from a papal visit to Brazil for World Youth Day, in which he spoke openly about everything from the troubled Vatican Bank to the greater role that he believed women should have in the Catholic Church.

Reporters on the plane said that the pope had been candid and high-spirited and didn’t dodge a single question, even thanking the person who asked about reports of a “gay lobby” inside the Vatican, and about Italian press reports that one of the advisers he had appointed to look into the Vatican Bank had been accused of having gay trysts.

Francis said he had investigated the reports and found them groundless. He added that while such a lobby would be an issue, he did not have anything against gays and that their sins should be forgiven, media reports said. He said that while homosexuals should be treated with dignity, using sexual orientation for blackmail or pressure was a different matter.

Pope Francis opened the door Sunday to greater acceptance of gay priests inside the ranks of Roman Catholicism as he returned to the Vatican from his maiden trip overseas.

"Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" the pontiff said, speaking in Italian. "You can't marginalize these people."

. . . While criminal conduct—such as the sexual abuse of minors—should be punished, sins should be forgiven once a person confesses, the pope said.

"When the Lord forgives, He forgets," Pope Francis said.

Women, he said, couldn't be ordained as priests, because the issue had been "definitively" settled by Pope John Paul II. However, the pope wanted to develop a "theology of the woman," in order to expand and deepen their involvement in the life of the church.

Pope Francis reached out to gays on Monday, saying he wouldn’t judge priests for their sexual orientation . . .

His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, signed a document in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests. Francis was much more conciliatory, saying gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten.

Stressing that Catholic social teaching that calls for homosexuals to be treated with dignity and not marginalized, Francis said it was something else entirely to conspire to use private information for blackmail or to exert pressure.

The media only writes about the sinners and the scandals, he said, but that's normal, because "a tree that falls makes more noise than a forest that grows."

". . . if a person, whether a layperson, priest or sister, goes to confession and converts, the Lord forgives. And when the Lord forgives, he forgets. This is important," he said, because those who want the Lord to forget their sins should forget those of others.

"St. Peter committed one of the biggest sins ever -- he denied Christ -- and he made him pope," Pope Francis said.

"A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will -- well, who am I to judge him?" the pope said. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation -- we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."

The director of the Holy See press office has clarified that Pope Francis has not presented a questionnaire to Catholics worldwide to consult on homosexual unions and divorced persons, as some news outlets have reported.

This assertion, made by Italian daily il Fatto Quotidiano among others, is “not true” and in fact the basis is “only a document sent to bishops' conferences throughout the world by the secretary general of the synod of bishops, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, in preparation for the synod of bishops,” Fr. Federico Lombardi told CNA Nov. 2.

He added that the synod, which will be held Oct. 5-19, 2014, will be dedicated to “the pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization.” The synod will focus on pastoral responses to the problems of divorce and gay marriage, as well as other challenges to the health of families.

But on Nov. 1, the National Catholic Reporter characterized the document sent to bishops' conferences as “a Vatican survey asking (Catholics') opinions on church teachings.”

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Lizarda Urena was alarmed and concerned for her two children at Concord (New Hampshire) High School when ammunition was found in the school restroom, so she began to pray aloud outside the school every morning, but when atheists in Wisconsin learned of her actions, their lawyers threatened the school, so the superintendent promptly banished Urena.

Lizarda Urena, the mother of two students, began praying on the steps outside the high school auditorium every morning after two bullets were found in a school toilet in February. She would spend about 15 minutes reading Bible verses and calling out prayers for the safety of the students. When the Monitor wrote a story about Urena in mid-May, both Principal Gene Connolly and school board President Kass Ardinger said they hadn’t received any complaints about her actions.

But that month a Concord resident contacted the Freedom From Religion Foundation [FFRF] to express concern about Urena’s actions. After requesting information about Concord High policies, the group’s attorney sent a letter to [Superintendent Chris] Rath saying the district should not allow Urena to continue praying at the school. Rath responded July 12, saying the district would tell Urena she could no longer pray on school district property.

Urena plans to continue praying for the students’ safety even if she can’t do so on campus. She will pray at her home or at the gas station across the street from the school, she said. Although she is sad she will be asked to leave, she said she appreciates that Connolly let her pray there for several months.

For nearly four months, Urena’s practice of praying at the school continued without a complaint, and officials took no issue with her presence.

Last week, the district responded to the FFRF, advising that it will no longer allow Urena to pray on the property.

“To be fair to all the kids in the school, it is probably best for the principal to say that she shouldn’t be speaking out like this and proselytizing on school grounds,” school board President Kassandra Ardinger told reporters. “The best mode of action was to tell her to cool it.”‘

A lawyer for a group that defends religious speech says if the school district didn't initially object to Urena speaking at the Concord High front door, and later responded to the content of her speech, then it has engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination.

"Students and community members that are allowed to come on campus and participate in a neutral thing are allowed to express religious viewpoints," said Matthew Sharp, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. "The students know it's the mother and her own speech — something that the First Amendment protects — and that it is not the school mandating this woman to do it."

It is unclear whether the school district will ultimately have to defend the ban in court.

Sharp of the pro-prayer Alliance Defending Freedom says the group hasn't decided whether to take up Urena's cause.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

President Obama presided at the annual White House celebration of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan this week, extolling the role that Muslims have played "throughout our history" in forming the America of today.

"Muslim-Americans and their good works have helped to build our nation, and we've seen the results."-- President Barack Hussein Obama

President Obama late Thursday celebrated Ramadan with a traditional dinner in the State Dining Room, saying that throughout the nation's history, “Islam has contributed to the character of our country.”

“Every day, Muslim-Americans are helping to shape the way that we think and the way that we work and the way that we do business," he said. "And that’s the spirit that we celebrate tonight — the dreamers, the creators whose ideas are pioneering new industries, creating new jobs and unleashing new opportunities for all of us.”

President Obama welcomed dozens of ambassadors and a handful of lawmakers to last night’s iftar dinner at the White House to break the day’s Ramadan fast by saying “throughout our history, Islam has contributed to the character of our country.”

Members of Congress invited included Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). Carson and Ellison are the two Muslims in Congress.

“When I look around the room tonight, beyond the communities you represent, I see all the profound good that’s been accomplished. So all of us are seeing the results of your good work — the opportunities to create for your colleagues and your communities and for our country. So I want to thank you for what you do, and for reminding us that our nation is stronger and more successful when we harness the talents of all Americans — no matter where we come from, or what we look like, what our last names are, or how we pray.”

“If you look at other nations that have gone down the road toward gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced. It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage, and that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech.”-- Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Gay marriage could lead to American pastors being charged with hate speech for preaching the Bible, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in a recent TV interview.

Cruz thinks that there is no doubt that the advocates who are driving this effort in the United States want to see us end up in the same place as the other countries where individuals are essentially prohibited from speaking out against homosexuality.

The intersection of equality for homosexuals and the freedom to express religious beliefs is a controversial issue . . .

When asked whether or not our country needs a spiritual revival, Cruz stated that it is without a doubt needed.

The freshman Texas senator’s foray into early primary and caucus country — South Carolina earlier this year, Iowa last week and New Hampshire next month — puts the deep division within the GOP between mainstream and tea party factions in a bright light.

Just seven months into his term, Cruz has emerged as a national model for those in the GOP who want the party to give full voice to the instincts of the base. On the issues they care about — gun rights, immigration, Obamacare — Cruz does not compromise.

“If you look at the last 40 years, a constant pattern emerges,” Cruz told ABC. “Any time Republicans nominate a candidate for president who runs as a strong conservative, we win. And when we nominate a moderate who doesn’t run as a conservative, we lose.”

Last week, in a closed-door gathering of Christian conservatives at a Des Moines hotel, Cruz quoted Scripture and preached small government for nearly an hour, pacing the stage with an ecclesiastical flair. Pastors laid hands on Cruz in prayer for him and the direction of the party.

Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Rand Paul (Ky.), both mentioned as possible presidential candidates, were the key speakers at a meeting of 400 Iowa ministers and their spouses. The senators also attended an Iowa Republican Party fundraiser.

Cruz drew a strong response Friday from the religious leaders with an emotional appeal to Christians “to hold party leaders accountable” and to engage politically. Paul issued a similar call to action in a more low-key address to the Iowa Renewal Project, the state chapter of a national organization that is likely to begin similar operations soon in other states.

In addition to the Iowa pastors, there were several African American and Latino church leaders from other states in attendance.

The [U.S. Supreme] Court established the Sherbert Test [in the 1960s] with some criteria to determine if the government had violated a person’s religious liberty. The person had to have a sincere religious belief upon which the government had placed a substantial burden for acting on that belief. The government must show there was a “compelling state interest” to burden the believer and that the government has acted in the least restrictive manner to further this compelling interest.

This is a high bar.

The 1990 [Supreme Court] Smith decision [which gutted the Sherbert decision] precipitated a huge reaction from the religious community and civil libertarians. Christians of right and left, along with the secular left, were galvanized. This unique coalition, which included the ACLU, World Jewish Congress, along with the Christian Legal Society and the Traditional Values Coalition, demanded redress.

. . . The coalition called a meeting on July 22, 1999 [which became its last] . . . The new objection from the left was that religious freedom would be used to trump the rights of gays. Such objections were not part of the debate only a few years before. But now they stopped legislation to protect religious believers, and sundered one of the most potent left-right coalitions in U.S. history.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

The San Antonio proposed anti-discrimination ordinance forbids the city from appointing, employing or contracting with anyone who has ever said, or privately believed, that homosexual behavior is sinful. City Council members say the old ordinance is outdated because it doesn't address sexual orientation and gender identity.

Critics argue the ordinance threatens to silence religious freedom because it proposes “No person shall be appointed to a (city) position” or board, if they ever “engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization.”

According to [Councilman Diego] Bernal, the ordinance puts San Antonio’s anti-discrimination laws on par with other Texas cities. He also admits any potential changes to the ordinance are just a draft right now and could be changed.

“The people of San Antonio need to know litigation will start, small business owners need to know it will impact their business and the city needs to know we will file a lawsuit against them based on the fact it’s blatantly unconstitutional,” said Patrick Von Dohlen of San Antonio Family Association.

“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” [Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International] tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.

Opponents of the plan, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination ordinances, charge it is a violation of constitutional Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The opponents explain that the ordinance would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.”

The proposal, however, does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful.

Church leaders who oppose the proposed change argue it violates First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. It also violates, they say, the Texas Religious Freedom Act and the Texas Constitution.

San Antonio joins nearly 180 other U.S. cities that have nondiscrimination ordinances that prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Supporters in red shirts and opponents in blue sat on opposite sides of the ornate council chamber Thursday. Church leaders vowed petitions to recall council members, and the shouts of protesters outside City Hall often carried through the stone walls of the century-old building.

More than 700 people registered to speak Wednesday during a marathon session of citizen testimony that stretched past midnight. Just a few hours later, 100 people signed up Thursday morning to get in a final word before the vote.

"The problem I have is that you criminalize us if we speak our faith," said Marc Longoria, 42, a pastor at My Father's House Church. "We are Christians all the time. We don't have an on and off switch."

. . . Christian and conservative leaders in the city and throughout the state warned of the consequences of giving special treatment to a group of individuals based on behavior a majority of the community's residents consider morally wrong. Days before passage of the ordinance a group of local African-American pastors showed up at city hall with hundreds of black and Latino Christians to voice their strong disapproval of the proposed measure. Speaking for the group, local pastor Charles Flowers said that he and other minority Christian leaders opposed the ordinance “because it is based on the notion that those who choose to practice a certain lifestyle cannot change. Yet the preponderance of evidence refutes this.”

Before the vote, a conservative group called the San Antonio Human Rights Coalition warned that while empowering homosexuals, the ordinance would effectively make acting on one's opposition to homosexuality against the law. While agreeing that “all people should be treated with dignity and all share the same fundamental human rights,” the coalition warned that the ordinance “punishes certain people of faith if they attempt to peacefully live in accordance with their beliefs or share their beliefs with others, thereby violating these believers’ human rights of conscience and speech.”

. . . One of the key supporters of the ordinance, City Councilman Diego Bernal, insisted that “we are not breaking new ground or doing anything revolutionary. We are merely doing what more than 180 cities and towns have done, which is to say that everyone deserves to live free from discrimination.”

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

A federal judge in Cincinnati ruled that citizens of Ohio violated the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as one man and one woman. Judge Timothy Black's decision regarded two Ohio men who chartered a plane to Maryland (where same-sex "marriage" is legal) for a "wedding" ceremony conducted on the airport tarmac.

"The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated."-- U.S. District Judge Timothy Black in Cincinnati

Federal Judge Timothy Black ordered Monday that the death certificate of ailing John Arthur show that he was married and that James Obergefell is his surviving spouse. The ruling means the pair can be buried next to each other in Arthur's family plot, located at a cemetery that only allows descendants and spouses.

Arthur and Obergefell, both 47, say they've been in love for more than 20 years, that Arthur is likely on the verge of dying from Lou Gehrig's disease, and that "they very much want the world to officially remember and record their union as a married couple," according to a lawsuit filed by the couple Friday against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine and a Cincinnati official responsible for filing death certificates.

"This is one more step toward marriage equality in the state of Ohio," said the couple's attorney, Al Gerhardstein, who said he's gotten calls from other same-sex couples who married in other states and are exploring their options to have their marriage recognized in Ohio.

The judge found that the Ohio Constitution "violates rights secured by the ... United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are valid, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage accepted as legal in Ohio, are treated differently than opposite-sex couples who have been married in states where their circumstances allow marriage in that state but not in Ohio."

Al Gerhardstein, the civil-rights lawyer who represented the couple, successfully argued that Ohio should recognize same-sex marriages from other states because it recognizes opposite-sex marriages from other states, including some banned in Ohio such as marriages between first cousins or involving people too young to marry in Ohio.

Without the official designation as Arthur's spouse, Obergefell told the judge he couldn't be buried with Arthur in Cincinnati's Spring Grove Cemetery, a burial ground that dates to 1845. Arthur's family plots are in that cemetery, and his grandfather stipulated that only direct descendants and their spouses can be buried in the family plot. With Black's ruling, Obergefell can be buried next to Arthur.

In a response to the couple's motion, Cincinnati City Solicitor John P. Curp said that although Jones had to follow state law in her job as vital statistics registrar, the city "will not defend Ohio's discriminatory ban on same-sex marriages."

In fact, Cincinnati officials named July 11, 2013, the day Obergefell and Arthur were married in Maryland, as John Arthur and James Obergefell Day in the city, which has a record of passing broader legal protections for gay and lesbian citizens than the state as a whole.

That left a challenge to the couple's motion in the hands of DeWine, who argued in his own response that any ruling in favor of the couple would set a bad precedent — threatening the state's constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriages that was supported by Ohio's voters.

. . . any final ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said the case was “representative of the strategy advocates for redefining marriages are using,” in which “they make emotional appeals rather than rational ones.”

Sprigg said the case could have “legal significance” since it addresses one of the key issues left unresolved by the Supreme Court’s June ruling in the Defense of Marriage Act: namely, whether a state that bans same-sex marriage has to recognize a gay marriage that took place out of state.

John P. Curp, the city solicitor in Cincinnati, who was initially responsible in defending Cincinnati Vital Statistics Registrar Camille Jones in the lawsuit, refused to do so, passing the responsibility to Attorney General Mike DeWine.

DeWine challenged the lawsuit by arguing that by approving the couple's restraining order, Ohio would be setting a dangerous precedent for similar lawsuits in the future, and would undermine the voter-approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state.

DeWine reportedly intends to appeal Black's ruling.

In 2004, the majority of Ohio voters approved an amendment that changed the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Black wrote that “once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away,” saying the right to remain married is recognized as a fundamental liberty in the U.S. Constitution.

Black referenced Ohio’s historical practice of recognizing other out-of-state marriages even though they can’t legally be performed in Ohio, such as those involving cousins or minors.

Attorney General Mike DeWine said the state will take its case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also based in Cincinnati. He called Monday’s decision “not a huge surprise,” given earlier rulings Black made in the case.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Whereas much study of marriage rates focus on the young delaying marriage, now a study shows that the Baby Boom generation is characterized by early-life divorce, then remarriage, then divorce again -- often times repeatedly. Just as previous studies, this one shows that the longer a couple is married, the less likely they are to divorce.

Although it is often said that men prefer their independence, two-thirds of all divorce filings are by women, and most significantly among those over age 50.

". . . rising female labor force participation is also conducive to divorce in that women have the economic autonomy (e.g., employment, retirement benefits) to support themselves outside of marriage. . . . Life-long marriages are increasingly difficult to sustain in an era of individualism and lengthening life expectancies . . ."

. . . a study has found that the divorce rate among older adults has more than doubled since 1980 and one in four persons who gets a divorce today is over age 50.

The goal of the study was to document trends, patterns, and correlate the risk of divorce among older adults. Researchers drew on information collected in the 2009 American Community Survey, which measures divorces that occurred in the past 12 months to estimate the divorce rate for older adults.

The 2009 survey was collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and the sample is weighted to represent the entire U.S. population. Respondents are asked whether they experienced a divorce in the past 12 months as well as whether they were widowed during this time frame.

A new report released Thursday by Bowling Green State University's National Center for Marriage and Family Research found that the U.S. marriage rate is 31.1, or 31 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women. That means for every 1,000 unmarried women in the U.S., 31 of those previously single women tied the knot in the last year. For comparison, in 1920, the national marriage rate was 92.3.

Meanwhile, the average age at women's first marriage is 27 years old, its highest point in over a century.

. . . 15 percent of women in the U.S. are divorced or separated today, compared with less than one percent in 1920. Researchers utilized data from the National Vital Statistics, Decennial Census, and American Community Survey in making their assessment.

Past research has indicated that women file for divorce more often than men. According to a report titled "'These Boots Are Made For Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women," published by the American Law and Economics Review in 2000, women file more than two-thirds of divorces in the U.S.

The divorce rate among adults ages 50 and older doubled between 1990 and 2009. Roughly 1 in 4 divorces in 2009 occurred to persons ages 50 and older. Sociodemographic factors, including age group, race-ethnicity, education, and the marital biography were associated with the risk of divorce in 2009. The rate of divorce was 2.5 times higher for those in remarriages versus first marriages. And, the divorce rate declined as marital duration rose.

. . . Many older adults that are currently divorced actually experienced divorce much earlier in the life course.

. . . We anticipate that the rate of divorce among middle-aged and older adults may have increased since 1990 as cohorts (e.g., the Baby Boomers) that came of age during the rapid acceleration of divorce during the 1970s and early 1980s reach age 50 and beyond. Most divorced people eventually remarry and remarriages are at greater risk of divorce than first marriages, meaning that in the coming decades greater proportions of middle-aged and older marrieds—who are actually remarrieds—face a higher risk of divorce.

. . . There is some racial and ethnic variation in the risk of divorce among those ages 50 and older, with Whites (8.7 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons) experiencing the lowest rate of divorce and Blacks the highest (18.6 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons). Hispanics are in the middle (12 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons). The divorce rate also differs by education. Those with a college degree experience a considerably smaller risk of divorce (8.4 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons ages 50 and older) compared to those with lower levels of education (the divorce rate ranges from 9.6-11 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons ages 50 and older among those with less than a college degree). But perhaps the most striking differentials are those for marital biography. The risk of divorce varies dramatically by both marriage order and marital duration. The rate of divorce among those ages 50 and older is 2.5 times higher for individuals in remarriages than first marriages. During middle age, the divorce rate is about 2 times greater for remarrieds than first marrieds. During older adulthood, the differential approaches a factor of 4. In terms of marital duration, the divorce rate among individuals ages 50 and older is 10 times greater for those married 0-9 years versus those married 40 or more years. The rate of divorce declines roughly linearly with rising marital duration. The stark differences in the rate of divorce in first versus higher order marriages and by marital duration suggest that the marital biography is central to the risk of divorce during middle and older adulthood.

Monday, July 22, 2013

In a major speech, the U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron characterized the modern culture as an immoral cesspool created by the freedom of the Internet, and he proposed myriad government actions to control that freedom for the specific purpose of saving children -- apparently wanting to return to a society of bygone days.

Unfortunately, there are two major hurdles: Technology analysts say there is no longer any means to effectively filter pornography from children, and worse yet, most adults are ineffective at parenting their children (and government is no substitute for parents).

I want to talk about the internet, the impact it is having on the innocence of our children, how online pornography is corroding childhood . . .I want Britain to be the best place to raise a family. Where there's a sense of right and wrong, and boundaries between them. Where children are allowed to be children.-- David Cameron, Prime Minister

"As a technological feat, it would be utterly impossible," columnist Andy Dawson wrote in the Daily Mirror, a nationwide tabloid frequently critical of Cameron's Conservative Party.

"His porn shield speech today, and the proposals that are in it are the deranged ravings of someone who has decided that something must be done, has decided what it is, but doesn't (realize) that it isn't actually feasible. He's got just as much chance of banning (gray) clouds while giving us all access to the nice white, fluffy ones."

Critics say that automated filtering technology inevitably allows offensive material through accidentally as well as creating "false positives" that block inoffensive content. Others, such as BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, say default-on filters can create a false sense of security among parents, who could become more lax in monitoring their children's online behavior.

This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.

The fact is that the growth of the internet as an unregulated space has thrown up two major challenges when it comes to protecting our children.

The first challenge is criminal: and that is the proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet.

The second challenge is cultural: the fact that many children are viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age and that the nature of that pornography is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.

. . . when it comes to the internet in the balance between freedom and responsibility, we have neglected our responsibility to our children.

[The Internet] has an impact: on the children who view things that harm them, on the vile images of abuse that pollute minds and cause crime, on the very values that underpin our society.

. . . it used to be that society could protect children by enforcing age restrictions on the ground whether that was setting a minimum age for buying top-shelf magazines, putting watersheds on the TV, or age rating films and DVDs.

[But now, for] a lot of children, watching hardcore pornography – is in danger of becoming a rite of passage.

In schools up and down our country, from the suburbs to the inner city, there are young people who think it's normal to send pornographic material as a prelude to dating in the same way you might once have sent a note across the classroom.

. . . the effect can be devastating.

Our children are growing up too fast.

They are getting distorted ideas about sex and being pressured in a way we have never seen before.

. . . I am absolutely clear that the state has a vital role to play.

. . . the search engines are not doing enough to take responsibility.

. . . they are effectively denying responsibility.

[They argue] that the search engines shouldn't be involved in finding out where these [pornographic] images are - that they are just the 'pipe' that delivers the images and that holding them responsible would be a bit like holding the Post Office responsible for sending on illegal objects in anonymous packages.

But that analogy isn't quite right.

Because the search engine doesn't just deliver the material that people see it helps to identify it.

Companies like Google make their living out of trawling and categorising content on the web so that in a few key-strokes you can find what you're looking for out of unimaginable amounts of information.

Then they sell advertising space to companies, based on your search patterns.

So to return to that analogy, it would be like the Post Office helping someone to identify and order the illegal material in the first place – and then sending it onto them in which case they absolutely would be held responsible for their actions.

So quite simply: we need the search engines to step up to the plate on this.

. . . here's an example.

If someone is typing in 'child' and 'sex' there should come up a list of options:

'Do you mean child sex education?'

'Do you mean child gender?'

What should not be returned is a list of pathways into illegal images . . .

Then there are some searches which are so abhorrent and where there can be no doubt whatsoever about the sick and malevolent intent of the searcher that there should be no search results returned at all.

Put simply - there needs to be a list of terms – a black list – which offer up no direct search returns.

So I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest.

You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty.

I simply don't accept the argument that some of these companies have used to say that these searches should be allowed because of freedom of speech.

. . . And there's a further message I have for the search engines.

If there are technical obstacles to acting on this, don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.

. . . You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it.